Freedom The True Hostage In Hijacking

June 23, 1985|By Martin C. Boire, Special to The Sentinel

Terrorism is theater. The terrorist is more concerned with having a lot of people watching than having a lot of people dead. He uses a terrorist act against a relatively small number of people to try to change the behavior of a larger audience.

As an ancient Chinese proverb puts it, ''Kill one, frighten 10,000.''

This certainly is the case with the TWA Flight 847 hostage situation. The Shiite terrorists don't care about the passengers. The passengers are a means to an end: forcing Israel to release more than 700 imprisoned Shiite militiamen.

Ideally the Israeli approach to terrorism is the best: Make no deals and hit the terrorists hard with the loss of as few hostages as possible. Unfortunately the Shiite terrorists have learned from past Israeli and U.S. rescue attempts and have moved their hostages into Beirut neighborhoods where the loss of life would be unacceptably high.

The situation now is about the same as it was in Iran. With the hostages secreted in hostile neighborhoods, the United States poses no direct threat and has little bargaining leverage. The terrorists have unlimited supplies, plenty of support and as much time as they want.

There is some cause for optimism. While it went largely unnoticed because of the TWA hijacking, 21 Finnish U.N. soldiers kidnapped by the Shiites were released unharmed the day after Flight 847 was hijacked. Amal leader Nabih Berri, who appears to have taken charge of the hostages, is a veteran politician concerned with world opinion. The hostages may not be released for some time, but it is unlikely they will be harmed as long as he is in control. That most of the hostages are off the plane and out of the public eye provides for a calmer environment.

For the long term, the real hostage to the terrorists may be freedom. Terrorism in Lebanon has resulted in anarchy and a complete loss of freedom. In Northern Ireland freedom has degenerated into a suffocating state-of-siege mentality pervading every aspect of everyday life. In India anti-terrorist legislation has been proposed that gives the government virtually unlimited rights to intercept mail, tap telephones, hold secret trials, search premises and imprison for life people who help terrorists. The proposed law's definition of terrorism is so broad that it could include those who merely dissent against the government in power.

The result of such legislation is that the freedom of the citizenry is encroached upon, and the terrorist thereby succeeds in driving a wedge between the citizenry and the government.

But freedom suffers in any case. The easiest and smartest way to combat terrorism is to prevent it from happening. This involves a chipping away at our freedoms, such as having to submit to metal detectors at airports. Yet we could resort to full body searches of every person on every flight and the terrorist still would find a way to get weapons onto an plane. Most of us would rather play the odds than submit to ever more excessive restrictions and violations of our freedoms to reduce the number of opportunities for terrorists.

As it always will be in a free society, the successful countering of terrorism is ultimately up to each of us. Terrorist attacks are a known risk when traveling in the Middle East, and Americans especially are attractive targets. Perhaps we should voluntarily

restrict our travel in the area until the climate has changed instead of presenting ourselves as easy targets for terrorists.

This unfortunately was the case with the seven other Americans being held in Lebanon. The U.S. government warned them to come home, but they insisted on staying. While we must do everything we can to bring about their safe return, they stayed at their own risk and were well aware of that risk.

As for retaliation against the Shiite terrorists, our position as a superpower makes this difficult if not impossible. Violent acts against the terrorists could have served our present and future interests if they were taken early on during the crisis. But it is easy to say that in hindsight. We are left now with options such as kidnapping the guilty parties for trial in the United States, assassinating them or bombing their headquarters, if they have any.

But any of these steps would violate international law, and as President Reagan said in his press conference last week, the United States does not have the luxury of committing terrorist acts of its own. We must be held to a higher standard. Though it may not satisfy our natural desire for revenge, the best option open to us is to secure the cooperation of the Lebanese government in arresting and punishing the terrorists after the crisis is over.